Re: [PATCH 00/15] v5 kernel core pieces refcount conversions

From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	dvhart@infradead.org, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] v5 kernel core pieces refcount conversions
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:55:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKK+iV4ZSbG7bXY2AojcpBFsQiEeJDrpPA5A6EZQuZxvA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170901094832.inwuzxczxs4b2ehh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:48:00PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Elena Reshetova
>> <elena.reshetova@intel.com> wrote:
>> > Now we have at least x86 support for ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT merged and
>> > arm and others on their way.
>> >
>> > Changes in v5:
>> >  * Kees catched that the following changes in
>> >    perf_event_context.refcount and futex_pi_state.refcount
>> >    are not correct now when ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT is enabled:
>> >     -   WARN_ON(!atomic_inc_not_zero(refcount));
>> >     +   refcount_inc(refcount);
>> >    So they are now changed back to using refcount_inc_not_zero.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>
>> Andrew, are you able to carry these patches in -mm, since they span a
>> bunch of core kernel areas?
>
> No.. these patches should go through the regular trees that maintain
> these various parts.

Okay, sounds fine. Elena, can you split these up? (You'll probably
have to examine MAINTAINERS and/or git history for each patch...)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security